This isn't really a response though; you're just being more specific about what you think is wrong, but not why it should be wrong.

"Cambridge Analytica illegally deployed foreign workers to American campaigns"

Why is it (or should it be) wrong for a non-US-citizen to advise members of a US campaign?

> Why is it (or should it be) wrong for a non-US-citizen to advise members of a US campaign?

To ensure the U.S. government is serving the interests of Americans.

It also promotes accountability. Take the trolls who provoked both sides of a debate into hostility [1]. That's not healthy for our democracy. But the FEC will have limited success going after the instigators. What they can do is tell American social media companies: "if you get paid to show advertising which, if on TV would have to carry a 'paid for by XYZ' disclaimer, then you have to get that information too."

Note that the FEC does not consider foreigners "who are...lawfully admitted for permanent residence" to be "foreign nationals."

Note further that nothing prevents e.g. the Russian embassy from taking out a full-page ad in a newspaper or buying advertisements promoting their views. They just have to say "this was paid for by the Russian Federation."

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intellig...

OK, I can see where where you're coming from. I think it's a little silly, and insufficient, but it's not a crazy position.

A little silly: Consider the examples. E.g., Russia took out facebook ads raising awareness about police brutality in the US. This is clearly "provoking both sides into hostility," but so what? Does it really matter that it's (scary voice) Russia doing it?

The second reason I think it's silly is it's just impossible to trace influence, ultimately. How many political commentators have gigs at think tanks that are ultimately funded by foreign governments? Lots! Or what about people that have close family members living in other countries? Etc.

Ultimately, I think people just need to evaluate arguments on the merits, and also be sophisticated about considering all possible sources and motivations for any given argument they are seeing.

Because it's illegal. What fight are you having?

Sometimes the law prohibits things that aren't morally wrong. For example, it's illegal to structure bank transfers to avoid reporting thresholds, even if there is no underlying crime. This is a reality.

You're highlighting the not-wrong parts of the illegal stuff and will next highlight the not-illegal parts of the wrong stuff. CA did things that were wrong and illegal, but not everything they did was both.

Still doesn't make any sense. Is "The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem or is "The democratic voting of two countries was illegally manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem?

> Is "The democratic voting of two countries was manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem or is "The democratic voting of two countries was illegally manipulated using social media, it puts at risk our rights, and freedoms." a problem?

Microtargeting voters is not illegal. It needs oversight, in the way campaign ads have to follow certain rules, but if the Russian Embassy bought political ads on Facebook, I think that would be fine.

There is a public interest in knowing who says what in a political discussion. This is why, whether it's a campaign or a PAC or a foreign government, political ads come with "paid for by XYZ" disclaimers. Cambridge Analytica deliberately skirted those rules to do what they were written to prevent.

There is also public interest in ensuring foreigners pushing political agendas do so in good faith. Promoting both sides of a debate, with the intention of sparking conflict, for example, is acting in bad faith [1]. Cambridge Analytica broke these rules [2]. In doing so, they enabled--deliberately or negligently--what those rules were written to prevent.

The line between "using" and "manipulating" any medium comes down to legality and intent. There are grey areas in those delineations. Cambridge Analytica jumped over the ambiguity into clear illegality, wanton disregard and in-your-face bad-faith behaviour [3]. They did so by taking advantage of Facebook's comercially-incentivised negligence and our election oversight system's blind spot in respect of online ads.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intellig...

[2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-cambridge-...

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/alexander-nix-cambri...

> if the Russian Embassy bought political ads on Facebook, I think that would be fine

Definitely not if they were political ads for a US election. It is illegal for foreign nationals without permanent resident status to participate in election campaign activities in that manner[1].

[1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/